This document summarizes a court case between R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Jan Grossman regarding Grossman's lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds over the death of his wife Laura Grossman from lung cancer. The court document discusses the background and history of the case, which went through multiple trials. It also summarizes R.J. Reynolds' arguments on appeal, including alleged errors during jury selection and issues with comments made by Grossman's attorney during closing arguments. The court ultimately affirmed the jury's verdict but ordered the compensatory damages award to be reduced proportionally based on the jury's comparative fault finding between Grossman's wife and R.J. Reynolds.

1. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,
Appellant,
v.
JAN GROSSMAN, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF LAURA
GROSSMAN, deceased,
Appellee.
No. 4D13-3949
[January 4, 2017]
Appeal and cross appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; John J. Murphy, III, Judge; L.T. Case
No. 08-025828(19).
Eric L. Lundt, Gordon James III and Robert C. Weill of Sedgwick LLP,
Fort Lauderdale, and Gregory G. Katsas and Noel Francisco of Jones Day,
Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Bard D. Rockenbach of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm
Beach, and Scott P. Schlesinger and Jonathan R. Gdanski of Schlesinger
Law Offices, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
DAMOORGIAN, J.
In this Engle1 progeny case, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“RJR”)
appeals the final judgment entered in favor of Jan Grossman as
Representative of the estate of his deceased wife, Laura Grossman
(“Plaintiff”). RJR argues that the court erred by: 1) denying its motion for
a mistrial based on an alleged error during jury selection; 2) denying its
motion for a new trial based on comments made by Plaintiff’s counsel
during closing arguments; 3) refusing to reduce the jury’s compensatory
damages award based on the Decedent’s comparative fault; 4) denying its
motion to remit the jury’s compensatory and punitive awards; and 5)
applying the Engle findings in violation of RJR’s due process rights. We
reverse and remand with instructions that the court reduce the jury’s
compensatory award in proportion with the jury’s comparative fault
1 Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006).

2. 2
finding and affirm in all other respects for the reasons set forth below.
Background
This is the second time that this case is before this Court. The lawsuit
began when Plaintiff sued RJR asserting that his late wife was a member
of the Engle class because she died from lung cancer caused by her
addiction to cigarettes. In his suit, Plaintiff alleged causes of action for
strict liability, fraud by concealment, conspiracy to commit fraud by
concealment, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of
implied warranty.
The case initially went to trial in February of 2010, but ended in a
mistrial. It went to trial for the second time in April of 2010 and was
broken down into three phases. In Phase I, the jury was asked to
determine if the Decedent was a member of the Engle class by virtue of her
addiction to cigarettes. It found that she was. In Phase II, the jury was
asked to determine liability, compensatory damages, and entitlement to
punitive damages. At the end of Phase II, the jury found for Plaintiff only
on his defective design count. Because the jury did not find for Plaintiff
on any of his intentional tort claims, the case did not proceed to the third
phase, which would have concerned the proper amount of punitive
damages.
RJR appealed and Plaintiff cross-appealed the results of the second
trial. We reversed and remanded for a new Phase II trial based on the trial
court’s erroneous inclusion of Plaintiff as a defendant on the verdict form.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman, 96 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
We did not disturb the jury’s Phase I class membership verdict. Id.
The third trial resumed at the Phase II stage (liability, compensatory
damages and entitlement to punitive damages) with the possibility for a
Phase III (amount of punitive damages), depending on the verdict.
The evidence presented at trial established that the Decedent began
smoking in the mid-1970s when she was a teenager and remained a heavy
smoker for the rest of her life. At the age of thirty-six, the Decedent was
diagnosed with lung cancer. At that time, she had been married to Plaintiff
for over ten years and they had two young children, a daughter, who was
nine, and a son, who was one. The Decedent’s condition deteriorated
rapidly as her cancer spread throughout her body. The Decedent died at
home at the age of thirty-eight, eighteen months after she was first
diagnosed with lung cancer. Her children were eleven and almost three

3. 3
when she passed away, leaving Plaintiff a forty-five year old widower and
single dad.
The jury found for Plaintiff on all counts and awarded him $3.5 million
in compensatory damages as well as the Decedent’s medical and funeral
expenses. It awarded the Decedent’s daughter $7.5 million and her son
$4 million. The jury apportioned RJR’s percentage of the fault at 75% and
Decedent’s at 25%. It also found that punitive damages were warranted
against RJR and following a Phase III punitive damages trial, awarded
Plaintiff an additional $22.5 million. After the trial, RJR moved for a new
trial based on a jury selection issue and certain comments made by
Plaintiff during closing. It also moved for remittitur of the jury’s
compensatory and punitive damages awards. The trial court denied all of
RJR’s post-trial motions and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the
amount of $37,851,701.09.
Analysis
Jury Selection Issue
During jury selection, the court, over RJR’s objection, considered and
granted two cause challenges made by Plaintiff after RJR used two of its
peremptory strikes. RJR argues that this was reversible error.
Recognizing case law which provides that a trial court does not have the
discretion to “infringe upon a party’s right to challenge any juror, either
peremptorily or for cause, prior to the time the jury is sworn,” Jackson v.
State, 464 So. 2d 1181, 1183 (Fla. 1985), RJR concedes that the court was
permitted to consider Plaintiff’s cause challenges, but asserts that the
court was required to restart the peremptory process after striking any
jurors for cause. We disagree.
Generally speaking, a trial court is afforded wide discretion in
determining the time and manner of challenging and swearing jurors.
Lottimer v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 889 So. 2d 165, 166–67 (Fla. 4th DCA
2004). To that end, there is nothing in the Rule of Civil Procedure
governing the use of challenges during jury selection which mandates the
procedure advocated by RJR. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.431(c)−(e). We decline to
judicially create such a rule.
Closing Comments
RJR made over forty objections throughout Plaintiff’s closing and
rebuttal closing arguments. About half of the objections were based on its
position that Plaintiff was improperly disparaging RJR for contesting

4. 4
damages at trial and for defending itself in Plaintiff’s lawsuit. In R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Calloway, 201 So. 3d 753, 759–65 (Fla. 4th DCA
2016), this Court held that such comments, if preserved, may merit a new
trial. Based on Calloway, RJR asserts that it is entitled to a new trial.
Plaintiff counters that RJR did not properly preserve its argument for
appeal and that any error does not rise to the level of fundamental error.
We agree with Plaintiff on this point.
The contemporaneous objection rule is well established in Florida in
regard to argument of counsel. There must be an objection at the time the
remarks are made. See, e.g., Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Tullo, 121 So. 3d
595, 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). “Whether a party is required to seek a
mistrial in this situation turns on whether the trial court sustained or
overruled the objection. If a trial court finds a comment improper and
sustains a party’s contemporaneous objection, the party must move for
mistrial if he wishes to preserve his objection. If a contemporaneous
objection is overruled, however, there is no reason for a party to seek a
mistrial.” Newton v. S. Fla. Baptist Hosp., 614 So. 2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1993) (internal citations omitted). Motions for mistrial, if required,
must be made, by the end of closing arguments at the latest. Murphy v.
Int’l Robotics Sys., Inc., 710 So. 2d 587, 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), approved
766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000).
Our careful review of the record reflects that the court sustained all of
RJR’s objections during closing to comments which were improper under
Calloway. Therefore, in order to preserve its argument for appeal, RJR
was required to timely move for a mistrial. Here, RJR did not move for a
mistrial based on Plaintiff’s closing comments until after the jury was
midway through its deliberations. Accordingly, this Court may only review
the court’s denial of RJR’s motion for a new trial based on Plaintiff’s closing
arguments for fundamental error.
In Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010, 1028
(Fla. 2000), our supreme court explained:
The purpose of closing argument is to help the jury
understand the issues in a case by applying the evidence to
the law applicable to the case. Attorneys should be afforded
great latitude in presenting closing argument, but they must
confine their argument to the facts and evidence presented to
the jury and all logical deductions from the facts and evidence.
Moreover, closing argument must not be used to inflame the
minds and passions of the jurors so that their verdict reflects

5. 5
an emotional response . . . rather than the logical analysis of
the evidence in light of the applicable law.
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
When allegedly improper comments during closing are only preserved
for fundamental error, the appellant must show: 1) that the comments
were improper; 2) that the argument was harmful; 3) that the argument
was incurable; and 4) that “the argument so damaged the fairness of the
trial that the public’s interest in our system of justice requires a new trial.”
Id. at 1028–30. See also Aarmada Prot. Sys. 2000, Inc. v. Yandell, 73 So.
3d 893, 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). It is important to note that the Murphy
court purposely made this test very difficult to meet, noting that while it
was not “absolutely ‘clos[ing] the door’ on appellate review of unpreserved
challenges to closing argument, we have come as close to doing so as we
believe consistent with notions of due process which deserve public trust
in the judicial system.” Murphy, 766 So. 2d at 1031. As we did in another
tobacco case, Tullo, 121 So. 3d at 601–02, we hold that the unpreserved
but improper comments in the present case did not create a fundamental
error.
Comparative Fault
RJR argues that the court erred in refusing to reduce the jury’s
compensatory damages by the Decedent’s comparative fault. The court’s
refusal was based on its finding that section 768.81(4), Florida Statutes,
(2013) barred application of the Decedent’s comparative fault to reduce
damages because the jury found that RJR committed an intentional tort.
During the pendency of this appeal, this Court held that at their “core,”
Engle progeny suits are “products liability suit[s] based on conduct
grounded in negligence.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Schoeff, 178 So. 3d
487, 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Accordingly, “application of comparative
negligence to [a tobacco] plaintiff’s fraud-based claims” is always required.
Calloway, 201 So. 3d at 767. Therefore, the trial court was required to
reduce the jury’s compensatory damages award by its comparative fault
finding.
Remittitur
a) Compensatory Award to the Decedent’s Children
RJR argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion to remit the
jury’s compensatory awards to the Decedent’s daughter ($7.5 million) and

6. 6
son ($4 million) because they are excessive and out of line with comparable
cases. We disagree.
Pursuant to Florida’s remittitur and additur statute, section 768.74 of
the Florida Statutes, the trial court has the responsibility to review the
amount of an award and determine if it is excessive or inadequate “in light
of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.”
§ 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). “If the court finds that the amount awarded
is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the
case may be.” § 768.74(2), Fla. Stat. (2013). In making its determination,
the trial court is guided by the following statutory considerations:
(a) Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice,
passion, or corruption on the part of the trier of fact;
(b) Whether it appears that the trier of fact ignored the
evidence in reaching a verdict or misconceived the merits
of the case relating to the amounts of damages
recoverable;
(c) Whether the trier of fact took improper elements of
damages into account or arrived at the amount of damages
by speculation and conjecture;
(d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation
to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered;
and
(e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence
and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner
by reasonable persons.
§ 768.74(5), Fla. Stat. (2013).
As we recently explained in considering the denial of a motion to remit
an Engle case compensatory damages award:
Compensatory damages are intended to redress or
compensate for a concrete loss. Where the loss is of a non-
economic nature, however, such as for mental pain and
anguish and for loss of consortium, the valuation is inherently
difficult. Because no formula can determine the value of such
a loss, great deference is given the jury's estimation of the
monetary value of the plaintiff’s mental and emotional pain

7. 7
and suffering. The fact that a damage award is large does not
in itself render it excessive nor does it indicate that the jury
was motivated by improper consideration in arriving at the
award. Rather, a compensatory damage award is only
excessive if it is so large that it exceeds the maximum limit of
a reasonable range. In reviewing an award of damages for
excessiveness, the court may consider the philosophy and
general trend of decisions in comparable cases.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Odom, No. 4D14-3867, 2016 WL 6992162, at
*2 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 30, 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
“When it comes to wrongful death awards, including those in the Engle
context, courts have drawn a distinction between compensatory damages
awarded to surviving spouses and to adult children.” Id. at *3 (emphasis
added). RJR primarily relies on adult surviving children cases in support
of its argument that the awards to the Decedent’s children are excessive.
In R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 93 So. 3d 331, 337 (Fla. 1st DCA
2012), the First District reversed an $8 million award to an adult surviving
child of a cigarette smoker on the grounds that it was excessive as
compared to other similar Engle awards. Citing to Webb, in Philip Morris
USA Inc. v. Putney, 199 So. 3d 465, 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), this Court
considered whether the impact of a decedent’s illness and subsequent
death on her adult, independently living children was sufficient to justify
a $5 million award to each child. We held that it was not, concluding that
awards of such magnitude are reserved for cases involving “much closer
relationships between the parties and the decedents during the decedent’s
illness.” Id. at 471. Most recently, in Odom, we held that:
Read together, Webb and Putney establish that no matter how
strong the emotional bond between an adult child and a
decedent parent may be, an adult child who lives independent
of the parent during the parent’s smoking related illness and
death is not entitled to multi-million dollar compensatory
damages award, even if the child was involved in the
facilitation of the parent’s treatments and suffered
tremendous grief over the loss of the parent.
Odom, No. 4D14-3867, 2016 WL 6992162, at *4.
However, none of these cases provide guidance as to the proper amount
of compensation due to a surviving child who was still a child at the time

8. 8
of his or her parent’s death. Indeed, the logic employed by the
aforementioned cases in finding multi-million dollar awards to
independent, adult children too large supports the propriety of a large
award to dependent, young children. As the Webb court made quite clear,
the proper measure of damages should be based on “evidence of [the
decedent’s] illness, subsequent death, and the noneconomic consequences
of the death itself.” 93 So. 3d at 339. This amount will obviously be larger
if the surviving family member was “wholly dependent on [the decedent’s]
companionship, instruction and guidance” at the time the decedent died.
Id.
There are no published Engle opinions discussing the proper measure
of damages where the smoker’s surviving children were minors when the
smoker died. Indeed, there are few published Florida opinions discussing
the proper amount of compensation due to a minor child who wrongfully
loses a parent. One such case is Citrus County v. McQuillin, 840 So. 2d
343, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). There, the court affirmed a $4.4 million
pain and suffering and loss of parental companionship award made to the
decedent’s son, who was seven years old at the time of his mother’s death.
Id. In doing so, the court concluded by writing: “Who can place a dollar
value on a human life, measured by the loss and grief of a loved one? That
difficult decision is generally one for the jury or fact finder, not the
appellate court.” Id. at 348.
Here, the Decedent’s daughter was only nine years old when her mother
was diagnosed with lung cancer and the Decedent’s son was an infant.
The evidence presented at trial established that the Decedent’s illness and
death had a devastating effect on the children. The daughter retained vivid
memories of her mother’s illness and decline. She testified that she
remembered wanting to do nothing more than hug and cuddle with her
mother, but that her mother was in so much pain that the daughter could
not even lay next to her. The daughter testified that she felt robbed by her
mother’s death, and often thinks about the relationship they would have
had and what her mother’s role would have been in her life.
The Decedent’s son testified that his only true memory of his mother
was watching the paramedics take her dead body out of their home in a
body bag. The son lamented not having more time with his mother and
testified that it negatively affected him for the rest of his life. The son
suffered from abandonment anxiety as a small child, and as he got older,
exhibited behavioral problems. Plaintiff testified that the son could not
comprehend that his mother died and would often cry out for “mommy.”
The children’s eventual stepmother also provided accounts of the effect the
Decedent’s death had on the children. For example, she testified that after

9. 9
seeing a lost-pet flyer hanging on a tree, the Decedent’s son drew a crayon
depiction of his mom and taped it on a tree hoping that someone would
“find” his mother. Another time, he asked the Santa at the mall for his
mother back.
The evidence at trial established that two young children who were
wholly dependent on their parents for support, guidance, and care not only
lost their mother during their formative years, but watched her suffer and
waste away as her body was ravaged by cancer. Under these
circumstances, the jury’s $7.5 and $4 million awards to the Decedent’s
son and daughter do not shock the judicial conscience. Accordingly, the
trial court did not err in denying RJR’s motion for remittitur.
b) Punitive Damages
RJR also argues that the court erred in failing to remit the jury’s
punitive damages award because it was unconstitutionally excessive. We
affirm the trial court’s decision as the jury’s award ($22.5 million in
punitive damages in light of a $13.5 million compensatory award) falls
under the constitutionally acceptable range as established by other Engle
decisions. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Buonomo, 138 So. 3d 1049, 1052
(Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that a jury’s initial $25 million punitive award
as compared to a $5,235,000 compensatory award was not so excessive
as to violate due process); Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander, 123 So. 3d
67, 81–82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that a $25 million punitive damages
award which bore a 2.5 to 1 ratio to a remitted compensatory damages
award of $10 million dollars was not unconstitutionally excessive); R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060, 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
(holding that a $25 million punitive damages award that bore a 7.58 to 1
ratio to the $3.3 million compensatory damages award was permissible).
Due Process
Lastly, RJR argues that the trial court’s ruling allowing Plaintiff to use
the Engle phase I findings to establish elements of his claims violates due
process. As RJR recognizes, the Florida Supreme Court has rejected this
argument. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013).
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s denial of RJR’s motions for a new trial and
for remittitur, but hold that the trial court erred in failing to reduce the
jury’s compensatory damages award by its comparative fault finding.
Accordingly, we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with

10. 10
this opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.
CONNER, J., and MOYLE, PAUL O., Associate Judge, concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.